Coming off college basketball's lowest-scoring season since 1952, the NCAA Men's Basketball Rules Committee on Thursday made a series of recommendations meant to bring new balance to offense and defense.

After three days of meetings, the rules committee recommended changes to the block/charge call and to the regulation of hand and arm contact intended to allow more offensive freedom and movement. Rules regarding hand and arm contact are in place, but committee members had noticed that their enforcement had become lax in recent years, leading to a spike in physicality and a decline in foul calls and, ultimately, scoring.

"There's been some growing criticism for the roughness that occurs during our game," said Art Hyland, the committee's secretary-rules editor. "I would say the major thing that came out of that meeting where there was agreement was that if we would call our rules as written, we would see immediate improvement in the game."

The agreement didn't just come from the rules committee. For the first time, its meetings also included representatives of the National Association of Basketball Coaches and the Division I Men's Basketball Committee, something rules committee chair and St. Peter's coach John Dunne called "a great idea."

After extensive discussions, the rules committee made the following recommendations:

Alter the block/charge rule so that defenders who move into the path of an offensive player once he has started upward movement to pass or shoot the ball will be called for a blocking foul.

Strict enforcement of already existing rules on fouls related to: defensive players with a hand or forearm on an opponent; with two hands on an opponent; who continually jab by extending arms; or who uses an arm bar to impede an opponent.

"I think sometimes the rules committee is looking to figure out ways to get more balance between offense and defense," Dunne said. "That doesn't mean there needs to be a rules change, but to correctly enforce rules already written."

The men's and women's rules committees also gathered to discuss rules and issues of play that affect both of their games. They jointly are recommending video review of shot clock violations or out of bounds deflections in the final two minutes of games, as well as video reviews when there are questions of whether a made shot was a two- or three-point field goal.

Additionally, they agreed that officials should have more freedom in enforcing elbowing rules, allowing them to call common fouls rather than flagrant 1 or 2 fouls when an elbow might be inadvertent. This became an issue during the first weekend of the recent NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament when eight elbows of varying style and intent all were assessed flagrant fouls.

"When the rule was put in, we just really wanted to protect the plyer from the high elbow swing where the offensive player was trying to create more space," Dunne said. "We really wanted to eliminate that from our game. We didn't take into consideration the many inadvertent elbows. It's really the inadvertent ones that really put the referees in a bind. They had nowhere to go other than a flagrant 2 or a flagrant 1."

Added Barbara Burke, the Women's Rules Committee chair and athletics director at Eastern Illinois: "To categorize all elbow fouls as flagrant, we believe, was too egregious. We wanted to create an opportunity for an official to make it a common foul. They can still call that flagrant, but they can also call a common, which they couldn't before."

The women's committee also recommended the institution of a 10-second backcourt rule, which already exists in the high school level and in men's basketball. International rules allow for eight seconds. College women's basketball always has had a 30-second shot clock.

"This committee felt like it was the right time to vote this rule in," Burke said. "There has been a lot of discussion around women's basketball about pace of play. I wouldn't say that it has slowed, but always need to evaluate our game and what we can do better. This gives us an opportunity to enhance the game."

One change that was discussed but not recommended was the reduction of the men's shot clock from 35 seconds. Dunne said there was a roughly 50-50 split among rules committee, the NABC and the Division I men's basketball committee on the merits of a shorter shot clock.

"Some people would say there's a lot of momentum for shot clock to change," Dunne said. "I'm not sure if there is as much momentum behind changing the shot clock as one might think."

Said Hyland: "One thing about college basketball is you've always had different styles of play. I think the rules committee is very hesitant to change the shot clock to eliminate certain styles of play."

The changes recommended by the rules committee now will be discussed June 18 by the Playing Rules Oversight panel. Any changes adopted will be effective for 2013-14.